Over bear stearns. That was hard enough to get it done. I agreed with them. It was no way that the withution procedure intervention that we had in there. Ss the government will come and take it over. It would not have flown. I want to add this. Sometimes we make a mistake. It is driven by the perceptions of voter sentiment. The tarps a Great Success but hated. Media, itians, the makes me nuts. The voters are no picnic either. I used to say that when i was in office. Born had a quote. Oh barney had a quote. The stitches are not so hot. The constituents are not so hot. You have this ideological tremendous intervention. You step in and to get rid of the board of directors and you fire people and you take the shareholders money. It was a hard enough job for me as chairman. I would never want to put it to a vote of the action by the fed being so active. It wouldve failed in committee. Said youmously have never want a serious crisis to go to waste was dubbed i believe kristi waste. Doubly kristi made a comment. Somebody asked what that meant and i do not know. Yearsiven we are five after a financial crisis, the frustration in the country, the fact barney has said tarp may have been successful but deeply unpopular, to the crisis go to waste but mark sump waste . The program was not popular. I made two points. To talk about the financial crisis. Landed on the president s desk was a crisis. In of the transition, i went to see president bush. Out, 24 billion to the automobile industry. Industry, the auto gm chrysler. We are going to give them six weeks of arriving room and that is all. Out the Auto Industry was as unpopular as billing out the financial ba iling out the financial sector. The autoleaned up efficiency which was delayed for years. S old up 60 30 now. Are profitable more people working in the Auto Industry including suppliers today than the price before hand. That is a crisis and all the decisions making sure the Financial Community and the organized labor, everybody is in the game and has a hand on the bloody knife. The Auto Industry is a lot more competitive than it was pre crisis. That was the crisis in use to resolve a decades long the decisions that were deferred and delayed and finally made. Think financial side, i we are far better than where we were at the beginning. There are some things that need to be done. I would include the Auto Industry which is more competitive than before. I will give one example. The ford auto plant in chicago added a third shift, 1200 jobs, 900 suppliers. The plant that exports to six in seven countries more than any other ford in the United States. That is a rebooted, retold industry. You cannot to do without a crisis. And i ask thist of everyone, wasnt there a way to make tarp more clinically palatable . I didnt know if would ever be popular. I do not know if it would be popular. What could you have done differently . I did have a Bumper Sticker that i use in 2010. I was persuaded not to. It said things wouldve sucked worse without me. [laughter] slogan. Tical that was true but not helpful. Two things. One that people think when they have both would not have been it wouldve been helpful would i have been. To disagreements. One was whether it we should go over the bonuses will stop bonuses. That onle biggest point was overwhelmed us was during the aig bonuses. The mob was in the street with pitchforks. I worried about our capacity to govern. We couldve done more. The only thing and hank thought it was important to get the money out. The second inc. Is why did you do more to use the money for mortgage . We had of the argument. To sell the bill to democrats. We would have mortgage relief. We have to give this money out of locating it complicating it. A legitimate difference of opinion. The first at 50 went out. , it isber saying to hank good public policy. 0 went out. T 35 obama said, ok. Ist people should look at the extent to which this affected by the fact that some the most important decisions taken by the government was taken during a transition. People,sked the obama the response was i got back, we only have one president at a time. I was a little frustrated. Thought it was overstated the number president we had at the time. [laughter] here is the deal. Mortgage. H done a the people thought it was popular is wrong. Those are strong conservative argument. I pay my mortgage, why are you taking money. There were some people who bought a house. And it went up and property. And they took out a Home Equity Loan and bought a boat. In the end, that was not much more couldve make it more popular. Fundamentally, theres a belief of fairness. You take a risk and you bear the consequences. We had to violate that in order to save the economy. You violated the core beliefs and it leads to great anger. Whether Congress Today would be to act, the fact that congress is so polarized is a result of the actions we had to take into thousand eight. Not a fair question to put the congress in the position. We created this. Things. You cannot take a 750 750 billion bailout and make it popular. Not possible. Not possible. It was ugly. It was going to stay ugly will stop ugly. It was fundamentally ugly. You had to overwhelm the system politically because you thought the end goal is more important. Can i add one thing can i add one thing . It was taken as close to an election as possible. Think this congress is a reflection of those decisions will stop decisions. Say this about redistricting the system is set up for the voters to take a representatives. Thats why you have a dysfunction. It is turned the system upside down. What we couldve done, we should not have chosen a four letter word to be the acronym. The term became a means of itself. The relation to the legislative vehicle. The timeframe was so condensed and the crisis so acute, we do not have the time to do the politics. If we had at the time, we couldve made a good case that the folks on main street were the ones in this was about. Not the banks. When you went to your business, that would not have enough business to open. To are not to be able to go your bank, it would be close. We do not have the time. At the time i would like to give my time to neel. At the time the vote went to down, i would argue that you and the president and then senator were very magnanimous and supportt tarp tarp. When you tell about the popularity or not there could be an argument made that electronic wasnt the president became the a number ofe made calls calling the bankers fat cats and making a number of comments that were somewhat prejudicial around tarp and the recipients that some people would argue made of the program less popular. Do you buy that . And no. I saidto agree with what in a moment ago. The program was not popular. We are two months before an election. Im a proud democrat. I put my political aside. Barney, we were the two point people for the democrats. Entire house of representatives. I didnt act in a sense of partisanship. I agree. I agree. Number two, the president in his first speech to Congress Said he would ask for more money if it was necessary. Not to just under tarp. We had a big debate in the white house we may have needed more money. The market needed to hear that he was willing to go went get more money. To stave off the need of the precrisis need for that. He came to the aid of the fed. Bankers are not the Financial System. Do not confuse the two. He was willing to spend Political Capital on the thing that was very unpopular and ask for additional resources. He said that in his first address to the United States house of representatives. The issue he brought up as it relates to compensation and bonuses was the first issue when we were first debating. He did not say anything that has not been set prior to that. I think you have the cause and effect backwards. The anger over the money being given to the banks was enormous. A large number of people were losing their homes. Intervening to help people foreclosed upon was a much more controversial issue than people thought. Do not give them money. They do not deserve it. It is moral hazard if i stop paying my mortgage. Why should i pay on time . Obama having defended this policy of giving. We knew what was loans. The we couldnt be sure if it would be repaid. Giving money to people who had been part of the problem. His criticism was probably a political necessity on his part. It was an effort to drain off some of the anger. We have two periods here. Before and after the aig bonuses. Chris got unfairly blamed. He said you cannot do a retroactively. That is one all of the anger unleashed. But whatever political demonization happened, whether or not, myssary question, i go to you, neel, is this. Originallyp. Was conceived, you thought the banks were going to keep the money for how long . Is reason i ask the question because they gave it back very, very quickly. Some people think thats a good was nott clearly that part of the plan. We wanted our entire goal economy fromt the collapsing so we wanted to put as much capital in the financial writ large at possible and have it sit this so we it to be at least three years and have it sit there for a period of time. For politicalged reasons and pitch forks came out and they paid it back very quickly which was like a patient giving medicine back. You need the medicine to work through the system. A lot of us were concerned when the banks paid back the t. A. R. P. They did and that was in response to politics. The notion that these poor we hurt their feelings, all these very rich, very well people, get over it. Thats tough. I was appalled by their maybe becausety were in a business where people say rude things about us all ale time but what i was told, two of the things that were necessary alleviate public anger, were one of the things that drove them, one, compensation restrictions and two, than anticipated their damned airplanes. I was struck by how much the fly in your own plane meant to those people and how restrictions on being able to fly around was a problem and it was also the political thing but frankly, we who had voted for it, the president who then it, the the outgoing president , too, but frankly, we were attacked, too, it didnt occur to us to think, oh, these poor people, people are them but i believe this was not stimulated by the politicians but was genuine public anger. In point of fairness, the House Republican leadership stepped up. John boehner, eric canter, paul ryan. All are characterizing them. They replaced their negotiator because they wanted be participants. They wanted no negotiator. Yes, they did. And replacedce them with lund. They still had a majority voting against them. I understand but lets give its due. Re in my experience, when the House Republican leadership they do better than the minority of their own party. Aboutave reservations that characterization. I think a lot of people went to the floor on that monday and they thoughtuse the leadership had the votes to pass the bill and left the floor quickly so they couldnt be gathered back in. Those are the republicans that on bothnk that was true sides, by the way. Much but so nobody ever casts political side. On your one, judd, wait a second. Politicians and its about politics. Since you ask political questions, youre two months before an election, this is a freebie on the incumbent party. Free shot on goal without a goalie in the goal box and the party, it was a majority, voted for it was fact. Popular after the it was unpopular while we it and unpopular when we implemented. It was unpopular and you cant put lipstick on that pig. The majority of our party voted an incumbent with president of the other party that would actually help solve a thelem and the majority of Republican Congress voted against it even with their own president in party. Political vote two months before an election and if you dont think thats true, you dont understand how of economics and politics work. Rahm, im just stunned youre a more forgiving person. I am on a oneonone basis. You. Ery forgiving of i was locked in a room with you for 48 hours. Senator, lets talk about what happens with bipartisanship at midnight. Take us inside the room. Can i say, judd, you had your your house colleagues where you know full well forget the leadership they were not leading their members to a yes vote to defend owneconomy and you had your views where you realized they were not holding up their side if some ofain even them like roy blunt wanted to. Plausible deniability on that issue. Ini know the story, its hanks book, maybe you can retell it for a second. Youre in the room. Midnight. To you might be there, too. I think barneys there. Barney was, and so was rahm. Of you. I would like the deniability now. This was at sort of the crux. This was the moment. Thing was going or not going and this man, mr. Paulson, i think, was throwing up he was so anxious about what was happening. He was concerned. Rahm and i were with hank in an ante room and rahm and i went lastth barney and the issue was restitution. Secretary and i made a proposal secretary made a was in charge. About 3 00 in the afternoon wed been going back and forth and neel was active in this and finally about 12 00 we couldnt agreement and we were throwing up our hands and it was just the three of us in the room and i remember rahm specifically saying, ok, and you and rahm went in to see the speaker and i dont think this storys really told. And i thought it was over. I thought wed lost it and we the dealwe had to have that night because the asian were opening the next day. 10 minutes later, the speaker came out, looked at me said, going your way, its done. I dont think the speakers got credit for that. I dont know what happened in room but believe me, if she had not done that, there would have been no deal and shes gotten credit for it. For that reason, judd greggs on time going to leave today. Let me go back. Theres a fundamental difference is not just partisan. The difference between the two its been abeen, movement in the Republican Party from the kind of mainstream you, of bob of dole, of both president s bush, not acceptthat does the notion that the Public Sector must play a significant role. Our partys at their best, we know there should be a Public Sector andprivate fight about where to draw the line. Thats not the majority of our party. That may be a loud function of the party. The partyhe part of thats intimidated the rest of the party in the house. I agree with that. But its the perception of many House Republicans, thats where the primary voters recalled turn primary and was a that was not you just saw that happen. Also saw the speaker take it to the floor. After a great deal of crisis, the floor with a gun to his head. Pretty big the gun was at his head. You brought it up. I dont want to get us off on a tangent. Not a tangent. Im sorry, this is not a tangent. This is not a small thing. Think you have a serious problem Going Forward to the a group ofhich republicans in the house who do not accept the ledge missy of function of the government have the agree of influence that they have and i think that was a factor. As far as Nancy Pelosis concerned, her cooperation started earlier. 2008, in january, george bush need anus and said we economic stimulus, the economys trouble and pelosi came back to us and said, we need a stimulus for the economy, republicans wont support spending, they have to be tax so im going to say yes but theyre the most progressive tax earned income tax credits and theres a fundamental difference between given therties today influence of the tea party on the sense of how much do you sacrifice of your own views to the government going and within the Republican Party in ae house today there has been scary diminution of that commitment. At the risk of not making my flight, youre absolving the president s role in building congress. Ges to the a lot has changed since 2008. No, let me say this, george i were not pals. I never had a serious with george bush andwhen he sent Paulson Bernanke up to tell us things collapsing, we responded of it wasnt schmoozing george bush. Im going to go with barney and well go down the line. Borrowed some of my time. Youre generous. He is my former chairman so i be. To j. P. Morgan is in the midst 13 billion settlement, in part related to assets it acquired during the financial crisis, both bear, stearns and Washington Mutual. Imhave said publicly and curious if your view has changed since we last talked given emerged aboutave whether you think government be fining the company for buying not for buying those assets but for whatever sins happened to those assets that were purchased during the crisis with a little bit of push if not bit of push from its been refined. Ive got more facts. Myould say, first of all, to recollection, the washington mump and bear, stearns were not the same. There was much more voluntary activity on the part of j. P. Morganchase for Washington Mutual and similar with bank of america. Pushed intoica was taking merrill lynch. Buying countrywide was one of ideas he had and it was his idea. I differentiate. Thatsgard to wamu, no, totally there. With regard to bear, stearns, you used the word fined. I think it would be not just policy to bad public fine them for having acqueases pressure from the federal financial people to take over bear, stearns. Leave aside equity, there may be federalrequest by other financial officials to a bank to step in that way and theyd be much less likely to be cooperative. To the extent that you can say made are people to be whole because of things bear, stearns did, thats different but as far as penalizing them what bear, stearns did before they were pressured into accepting it, i think thats a mistake. Mr. Mayor, what do you think of that . The next time the Treasury Bank during as a time of crisis, do they hang up on him . Whatm not i dont know they would do. I cant speak to that. Emphasize, i want to what barney just said on this one part which i think is an important point we are at a that j. P. Morgan had to get bear, stearns because you the lehman moment earlier. Bear has j. P. Morgan because they did something they initiate, we solicite